The Gimmick PPV: Doing it's Job or Over-Doing it's Job!

It seems these days taking time to build a feud with the match taking place at a pay per view does not equal buys or at least not enough to please the higher ups in WWE and TNA (although TNA aren't getting that many buys regardless of what they put on their pay per views). But the "gimmick" PPV has been around for a long time.
Gimmick PPV are shows built around a certain type of matches occurring throughout the night or just one or 2 special matches occurring on the night. You can say that the first "gimmick" PPV was Survivor Series 1987 the show was built around 4 on 4 elimination matches and that would be the type of match that filled the card. Just months later WWE would hold it's first Royal Rumble a show built around the first time ever unique battle royal this would be the only time 20 men took part as it went up to 30 the next your and stayed that way until last years when it went up to 40. These two events would happen ever year and still do to this day. These shows were unique and have made such an impact that the Royal Rumble has been ripped off by so many companies and indy promotion even promote 4-on-4 elimination matches as Survivor Series style. While this was probably the start of gimmick pay per views there was a good reason for them in my view. At that time WWE only had 4 pay per views a year the other two being wrestlemania and summerslam the rest of the year was completely free to watch including Saturday Night's Main event which was a supershow of sorts so WWE needed to come up with a way to get the audience to buy these shows and what better way than to have shows which were completely unique and wouldn't happen any other time. It was a great idea and when WWE started adding more pay per views ending with one a month those two shows were still the only gimmick shows on their lists.
The gimmick PPV wouldn't really be used again until WCW's Uncensored PPV in 1995 started the show revolved around idea that their was relaxed rules and it consisted of many gimmick matches throughout the night. However it never really worked well as the Uncensored PPV's ended up being rubbish and confusing for example at one Hogan beat Vader in a strap match by dragging Ric Flair (who was in a dress) around the ring and touched all 4 corners! The only show that was OK was the 98 show which was mainly held together by the undercard. The main problem was the gimmicks were just weird and confusing plus the main event stars were old and couldn't carry them, I'm looking at you Hogan! So the Uncensored PPV was a bad attempt at WCW starting a gimmick PPV.
The gimmick PPV was a forgotten thing by the 2000's as the Rumble and Survivor Series were just accepted and the Survivor Series would often have less and less 4-on-4 matches sometimes having none at all. But it would be revived in 2005 when TNA held it's first ever Lockdown PPV. Lockdown was the first PPV that had cage matches from the first to the last, it was originally meant to just have two but TNA decided "If we put it up at the beginning and leave it then it would make a good show" well they were kind of right as Lockdown is one of their best brought shows. TNA would often do gimmick shows being built around certain matches including shows focused on the Ultimate X or their Slammiversary show being built around the overly confusing King of the Mountain match, luckily they've got rid of that match but they haven't fired Russo the man who came up with that crap! And in a weird turn of events WWE decided to copy TNA and started doing more gimmick pay per views throughout the year, usually TNA copy everything WWE do so they must of loved the fact WWE used their idea. Now we've got to the point were their are more gimmick pay per views than normal ones but the question is do they work?

Gimmick pay per views much like anything else have good points and bad points. One positive to gimmick pay per views is that they can increase the quality of the overall show, TNA's latest gimmick show Destination X which focused on the X Division was one of their best shows in ages but when you look at over gimmick shows the wrestlers will usually have more creative freedom than in a normal match. I personally also like gimmick matches because of that if you watch shows like Extreme Rules they are often good from start to finish because you get such a range of gimmicks and creativity coming out. Having so many different gimmicks happening during the show can keep the audiences attention as you're unlikely to see the same thing one match after another. But one of the biggest positives to gimmick pay per views, in my eyes, is that it allows the fans to see matches that we wouldn't at any other time and that could be due to the fact you cannot build a story around these matches. Let's face it no matter how many times WWE tries to build a story around the Royal rumble match it never sticks and the reason why people watch is because we love the rumble match itself, it's just something special that we get caught up in for that hour plus that it's on. I personally never miss a rumble match as their one of my favourite matches to watch every year. But the rumble match isn't alone here. Let's be honest when WWE introduced the elimination chamber they tired to build stories around them but they failed mainly because it's hard to book 6 guys to work the one match and another reason was that it's not needed. WWE have done the perfect thing placing a pay per view around it and saying that if you want to be the main event at wrestlemania you have to win this match it's your last chance. The same can be said about Money in the Bank that is just a match that happens and the winner gets a push and a eventual World title run you can't put a story on that.

So that's the positives to gimmick pay per views "But Christian what's the negative?" I hear you all ask well I'll tell you!
While gimmick pay per views allow us to see matches we wouldn't normally see they also over due matches that we do normally see. TNA Lockdown is the perfect example one a show with 7 matches it results in 7 cage matches OK that would be fine if it was just for the one night but TNA hold cage matches on a regular basis so holding a show with all cages is nothing special. This also leads to my next problem which is adding gimmicks to gimmicks, TNA are famous for this. In order to separate one match from the other they add another match type to one that's already standing look at the first Lockdown and you'll see a tables match inside a cage! WWE are no different here as during their Breaking Point PPV built around submission matches they held a "Submission Counts Anywhere" match which made no sense since all the wrestlers involved (DX vs. Legacy) weren't known for submissions nor did they build the story around submissions. The ultimate gimmick on gimmick match has to be the King of the Mountain match which was a "reverse" ladder match which also had pinfalls/submissions, guys going into a cage when pinned and wrestlers having to earn eligibility to hang the belt! By adding gimmicks onto gimmick matches you are making the matches too confusing and harder to follow the ultimate solution would be to not have so many gimmick matches on the show.
In my last point I mentioned a story being built and that brings me nicely onto the fact that some gimmick pay per views revolve around matches that should occur when the story is right. The best example I can make here is the Hell in a Cell PPV. When the Cell was introduced to the WWE it was the ultimate solution and the ultimate conclusion to a feud. The match would probably only occur once or twice a year mainly because that's when it was needed. Look at some of the famous feuds that have ended in the Cell. Undertaker vs. Batista ended in the Cell at Survivor series after starting at Mania of that year, Undertaker vs. Edge lasted a year and a half (on/off) before ending in the cell at Summerslam and Undertaker(he's been in a lot hasn't he and I'll get to that in a moment) vs. Randy Orton started at Wrestlemania 21 and ended in the cell at the final PPV of the year. This was the perfect end to the feuds and they happened when they did. Look at the last two Hell in a Cell PPV's did CM Punk-Undertaker deserve to be in the cell? No as they only started working together 2 months before. Did Sheamus-Randy Orton deserve to be in the cell? No as they hardly feuded with each other. You lose the matches meaning when it's literally just a gimmick for one show. Hell in a Cell was one of my favourite matches to watch, not so much now that it's gone PG, but it's just another gimmick to me now that I'll only get to see for one night. Maybe WWE should do matches when they are meant to happen and not for just one random night or remember that they have that show and place time and effort into the feuds so they make sense when they are in the cell.
Having mentioned the Undertaker's repeated Cell matches in my last point brings me to my final grief with gimmick ppv's. As I've mentioned some gimmick shows over due certain matches and one of the problems is that these gimmicks are synonymous with specific wrestlers. Undertaker has been involved in the most Hell in a Cell matches than anyone else in WWE and it's hard to imagine a Hell of a Cell show without him however they must take their toll on him, Taker is a physical wreck right now who seems to only be able to wrestle once a year. The same can be said for Edge and Ladder matches, Edge recently retired and part of the credit has to go to the huge amount of ladder/TLC matches he has been in. By doing these gimmick matches too often you are risking injuring your workers on a more regular basis and cutting down their career length in the long run.

So do gimmick PPV's work? Basically NO! WWE now have more gimmick PPV's than normal PPV's and yet they still aren't getting any more buys than they wish they could get.
But my ultimate example showing that gimmick PPV's don't work is ECW's December to Dismember PPV. That show spent months promoting one match, later two, that being the "Extreme" Elimination chamber and the Hardy's vs. MNM, which was a brilliant match and it's a shame that Jeff is to busy messing up his life with drugs and Matt is too busy getting himself over on Twitter to put on anything close to a good match these days. The show is remembered as one of the worse ever and promoting a 3 hour PPV with 2 matches that will take up less than an hour is a stupid move and their is no reason to watch the other matches that will be thrown out there.
As you can see there is more negative results in the gimmick PPV's than positive, in my view. The question is will WWE go back to holding more normal PPV's, who knows I kind of doubt it though. While gimmick PPV's can help build a feud along by placing them into gimmick matches it can also rush them which ultimately hurts them and cuts them short. For example Randy Orton faced off with John Cena in the Hell in a Cell, which like I said was meant to be the ultimate end, and yet they worked a hour long match just one month later which was meant to be the end!
The common theme of this blog seems to be removing the meaning behind the gimmicks and if done enough those gimmick matches will soon just become just another normal match to the fans and the wrestling companies will have to go to new extreme which will likely end up adding gimmicks to gimmicks and like I said it will make it harder to keep up with and just lose even more meaning. I'm all for gimmick PPV's if they are held 4 times out of the 12+ PPV's WWE put on ever year.